James Neil, (1844-5/5/1914). "he spoke of things beyond our ken"

WANTED Known - The New Cure for Consumption (Mullen Plant) can be had at the Botanic Dispensary, Great King street, near the Hospital. Mechanical herbs, with directions for use sent post free to any part of the Colonies. J. Neil, Herbalist, Dunedin.  -Evening Star, 10/4/1878.

PRELIMINARY ANNOUNCEMENT. 

J A M E S  N E I L, 

HERBALIST, 

Has opened an Establishment in 

G E O R G E  S T R E E T, 

(Next Eaton and Co.’s Timber Yard), 

Where he has on hand an extensive Stock of the purest, 

HERBAL AND BOTANICAL MEDICINES. 

Particulars in Future Advertisement.   

-Saturday Advertiser, 26/8/1876.

J A M E S   N E I L, 

Wholesale and Retail 

HERBALIST, 

Has on hand and to arrive, a large and choice selection of the finest Medicinal Herbs, Roots, Barks, Oils, Extracts, Druggists’ Sundries, Patent Medicines, &c. Botanic Books by the best Authors. Having these, I am prepared to give advice free to all. Also the following botanic preparations, which are giving satisfaction: — Blood Purifier, Decline Syrup (it fully justifies its name), and Mother’s Friend or Soothing Syrup, free from all narcotics, and a first-class article; those who have used it for years, speak of it in highest terms. Composition Powder — this is the stitch in time that saves nine; it prevents and cures colds, colics, Ac. Botanic Cough Syrup, really good, and other medicines, pills, &c., seen on application. One trial requested. 

J. NEIL, 

GEORGE STREET, DUNEDIN.   

-Saturday Advertiser, 21/10/1876.

A new phase of the licensing question has cropped up in Dunedin. As we gather from our exchanges, a herbalist was charged with selling a gill of brandy to a man who wanted it for his wife, and the magistrate seeing that the vendor supplied it in his medical capacity dismissed the case. A sarcastic correspondent of the Herald writes that he knows another “Herbalist, who usually cures his patients with carrots and cabbages, and sometimes, when they are very bad, gives them green peas for dinner pills, has just ordered in a 10-gallon keg of brandy to have in readiness to meet cases of stomach ache, fainting, fits, dry throats, and palpitation, which patients sometimes complain of, and means to sell it in doses of one or two gills as the ease requires.” In the same issue the herbalist himself, a person named Neil, of George-st., writes thus: — “About my selling brandy without a license, the chemists should be thankful to me for having settled the point — that in the case of a medicine a license is not needed. For it is a fact that many, if not all of them, have been in the habit of mixing it with a few drops of something else to evade the law. Now they need not do so, if it is really sold as a medicine; if the law is wrong, then let them apply to Wellington for such a Bill as will please themselves. But, sir, does seem a farce that I should be charged with sly-grog selling when I put my name and address on the bottle; and further, that the police who recommended me to be registered ns a druggist should prosecute me for selling spirits because, as the summons says, I am not a druggist.”  -Wairarapa Standard, 13/9/1879.

DUNEDIN. January 10. At the inquest on William Desmond, the jury found a verdict of death from epilepsy, occasioned by excessive drinking, and accelerated by poison. Neil, the herbalist, who sold poison to the deceased, was censured for not taking better precautions in selling the same. The poison consisted of bottles of vermin killer, which contains strychnine.  -Oamaru Mail, 10/1/1880.

Most of your readers, I presume, have heard of Mr J. G. S. Grant — heard of him, that is as a contentious controversialist — through the columns of the newspapers. Or, better still, they will remember him as having on a certain memorable occasion contested one of the city constituencies, on which occasion he polled just one vote, presumably his own. He is well known here, as well known as the proverbial bad penny; and, apparently, the one object of his existence seems to be to stamp his personality on what he would himself call "contemporary minds." J.G.S.G. it should, however, be remembered is a man of undoubted ability of a certain order, is a very pungent writer, and has always shown a special fancy for doctrinal discussion of all kinds. Only a few evenings ago I had an opportunity for the second time of seeing him on the platform in full war paint, engaged in heated controversy with Mr J. Neil, lately known to fame as the author of a work dealing with the medicinal properties of herbs. The subject which these two modest gentlemen set themselves to decide was the immortality of the soul. Mr Neil is a believer in what is known as "conditional immortality," while his opponent believes in its immortality without any conditions or provisos of any kind. The only hindrance that prevented the set-to being thoroughly enjoyable was the painful feeling that a very sacred subject was being dealt with in anything but a reverential manner. Mr Grant at times was exceedingly fierce, denouncing the clergy as hirelings and applying very contemptuous epithets to the religious views of his adversary. Each speaker was allowed twenty minutes in which to answer and annihilate the arguments of his opponent; and though Mr Grant can be both effective and fluent on paper, he cuts a very indifferent figure on the platform. He was, therefore, hardly a match for the more fluent herbalist, who was always able to get all his points in in the allotted time. At the conclusion of the discussion, a show of hands was taken, when sixteen voted in favour of the immortality of the soul and twenty-five in favour of conditional immortality. The whole proceedings throughout were somewhat farcical in character, and were instructive only in as far as they showed the manner in which religion is being carved and split-up to suit the eccentricities and whims of ignorant men.  -Tuapeka Times, 5/4/1890.

The advent of Mr Collins, a youthful Freethought lecturer from New South Wales, with a mission to abolish Christianity, serves opportunely to remind us how utterly and irreversibly the Freethought movement in Dunedin is dead. Time was when the cheerful gospel of unbelief had its settled minister (Charles Bright), its regular Sunday evening services (Princess Theatre), and its weekly newspaper (the Echo). Later, it built in due form its church (the Lyceum), established its Sunday school (where youthful Freethinkers were educated to slap their breasts with the left foot), and published its expurgated and amended Bible (the "Lyceum Guide.") Yes, — in those days Freethought, like Hans Breitman, "had a party," but "where is that party now?" A few gloomy enthusiasts collect in the dismal crypt beneath the Athenaeum, where, in an atmosphere flavoured by the very ancient and fish-like smell native to the place, they build up each other in their most unholy faith — the faith that man has no soul, and that "death ends all." They are lectured to by Mr Collins, the young man from New South Wales, who is appropriately answered, defied, and challenged to debate by Mr Neil, the George street pill-maker and "medical herbalist," fresh from a wordy triumph over J. G. S. Grant. To this pitiable case has Dunedin Freethought been reduced — scratch meetings in the Athenaeum vaults, enlivened by contemptuous challenges to mortal combat — (judiciously declined) — from a theological maker of pills. Its history is the latest illustration of an old saying: Christianity is an anvil that has worn out a good many hammers.  -Otago Witness, 17/4/1890.

King Roberts has passed away, and King Carroll reigns in his stead, but no man seems to heed it. Nay, more, the unanimity of the council at the installation (and when our councillors are unanimous that unanimity is wonderful) has called forth no comment. We have had a contested election with never a speech, but no man marvels at the wonder. Mr Toomey, the publican, who boasts his utter ignorance of municipal matters, has silently but effectively beaten Mr Neil, the herbal theologist or theological herbalist (I forget at the moment his precise addition, but he will pardon me) — yet nobody appears to know it. Last, but not least, Mr Neil has solemnly and publicly renounced politics until the harmless necessary cab becomes extinct. And still the public mind is not stirred. Why this strange lethargy ? Well, man is only mortal after all. We can't absorb more than a given amount of excitement, and I conjecture that the saturation point has been reached. We are surfeited with excitement.  -Otago Witness, 23/23/1890.

A good deal of fan has been made m Australia over the discovery that a "new cure for typhoid" is nothing but common yeast. The doctor who discovered this "cultivated" the germ in "suitable media," and all that, and wrote as learnedly and as cautiously as Dr Koch about his curative organism, and all the while they were nothing but common brewers' yeast. Dr Neil, the Dunedin herbalist, in his useful book, "The New Zealand Family Herb Doctor," recommends yeast as a remedy for typhoid in its worst forms, and gives several cases m which it was used with complete success, even when patients were apparently at the last extremity. -Timaru Herald, 23/1/1891.

CITY POLICE COURT

Destitute Persons Act. — James Hardie, of Mornington, complained that he was a destitute person, and that two of his daughters, Annie Neil, wife of James Neil, herbalist, of Dunedin, and Isabella McLaren, wife of Alexander McLaren, farmer, of Goodwood, were of sufficient ability to support him. Sir Robert Stout appeared for Mr Hardie, and Mr A. S. Adams for Mrs Neil and Mrs McLaren. Sir Robert Stout said that Mr Hardie was an old settler, and was a mason, residing at Mornington. He had a family, and two of these were daughters — Mrs Neil and Mrs McLaren. All that was asked from them was some contribution to his support. They were not asked to support him fully. If they would give 4s a week each that would be satisfactory, as the others would help. He could not say what the private means of the two defendants were; but their husbands were exceedingly well off, and it was hard that they should not do something for the support of the poor old man. — Mr Adams remarked that his friend should address himself to the ability of the parties, and not to those of their husbands. — Sir Robert Stout said his friend was surely not going to raise that point. Would Mr Neil, a well-known herbalist, and a candidate for civic honors, say that his wife was not able to give 4s a week to her poor aged father? Very little was asked, and he (Sir Robert) did not understand why in a family matter like this they did not do something to help the man in his want and trouble. Surely a rich man like Mr Neil was not going to allow his father-in-law to starve. If he would say now that he was willing to pay 4s a week the summons would be withdrawn at once. — James Hardie, seventy-three years of age, said he had been thirty-one years in the colony. In cross-examination, he said that for a short time back Mr Neil had been paying his (witness's) grocery account to Mr Tucker, amounting to about 3s 8d a week. He also said that a lawyer’s letter to Mrs McLaren was the first intimation he had given her that he wished her to pay towards his support. —Evidence was also given by Mrs Neil and Mrs McLaren. — Mr Adams based his defence on the contention that the means of the husband were not the means of the wife. He called no evidence. — His Worship said he did not think the defendants had means that they could call their own, and that being so the case would be dismissed.  -Evening Star, 8/10/1891.

Is a married man responsible for the support of his wife's destitute parents? This was a question that came before Mr Carew a few days ago and was decided in the negative. The plaintiff was a feeble old man, trembling under the weight of seventy-three winters, and under stress of want and destitution he found himself compelled to bring his daughter into court, as she refused to contribute anything to his support. All he asked for was 4s a week, a small sum, certainly, considering that his daughter is married to a man in very good circumstances, Mr J. Neil, the well-known herbalist of this city. But Neil refused to do anything to relieve his destitute poor, old father-in-law, and the worst of it is the law confirmed his inhuman action and set the seal of its approval on his hardness of heart. Now it amounts to this that, though this old man might die of starvation, his tender-hearted son-in-law would share none of the responsibilities of his death. But though the law of the land might hold him guiltless, what about the moral law? Would public opinion arraign the man who so offended? And why, then, is. the law not altered to meet such a case? Is it not outrageous that a wealthy man can turn an aged relative adrift in this manner, and that the general public are compelled to support him? What a heart and what a nature, what a want of spirit, of humanity and self-respect, or, indeed, of any feeling likely to make a good citizen or a good man must a person have who, possessing ample means, and living in comfort himself, can coolly look on at the aged father or mother of his wife eking out a brief existence on the public charity! Such men are a libel on humanity, and I often wonder what could be the intention of the Almighty in creating so hopelessly repulsive a class. Probably to show mankind how base it is possible for human nature to become, and how necessary it is that the soul-effacing passion of avarice should be fought against and prevented from effecting a lodgment in the human breast.  -Tuapeka Times, 17/10/1891.

SUPREME COURT — CIVIL SITTINGS.

Saturday, December 12,

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams and a special jury of four.) 

NEIL V. PILLING AND ANOTHER.

Claim, L200 damages for libel. 

Mr A. S. Adams appeared for the plaintiff, James Neil, herbalist, of Dunedin; and Mr J. F. M. Fraser for defendants, Pilling Bros., proprietors of the 'Tuapeka Times.'

In opening to the jury, Mr Adams said that the paragraph complained of was as follows: — "Is a married man responsible for the support of his wife's destitute parents? This was a question that came before Mr Carew a few days ago, and was decided in the negative. The plaintiff was a feeble old man, trembling under the weight of seventythree winters and, under stress of want and destitution, he found himself compelled to bring his daughter into Court as she refused to contribute anything towards his support. All he asked for was 4s a week — a small sum certainly, considering that his daughter is married to a man in very good circumstances, Mr J. Neil, the well-known herbalist of this City. But Neil refused to do anything to relieve his destitute poor old father-in-law, and the worst of it is the law confirmed his inhuman action and set the seal of its approval on his hardness of heart. Now it amounts to this, that though this old man might die of starvation, his tender-hearted son-in-law would share none of the responsibilities of his death. But though the law of the land might hold him guiltless, what about the moral law? Would public opinion arraign the man who so offended? And why, then, is the law not altered to meet such a case? Is it not outrageous that a wealthy man may turn an aged relative adrift in this matter, and that the general public are compelled to support him? What a heart and what a nature, what a want of spirit, of humanity, and self-respect, or, indeed, of any feeling likely to make a good citizen or a good man, must a person have who, possessing ample means and living in comfort himself, can coolly look on at the aged father or mother of his wife eking out a brief existence on the public charity! Such men are a libel on humanity, and I often wonder what could be the intention of the Almighty in creating so hopelessly repulsive a class. Probably to show mankind how base it is possible for human nature to become, and how necessary it is that the soul-effacing passion of avarice should be fought against and prevented from effecting a lodgment in the human breast." The facts, said learned counsel, were that Neil's wife's father had for the past ten or eleven years been assisted by Neil, who had been at the expense of hundreds of pounds on his father-in-law's account, and had this year provided him with a home until he chose to leave it, and always extended to him the offer of a home. He (Mr Adams) assumed that defendants admitted that the statements made in the paragraph were untrue.

Mr Fraser: No; we plead fair comment on the proceedings in the Court below.

Mr Adams said that was presuming that the proceedings in the Court below were material. He should have to ask His Honor to rule, if that defence were relied on, that the facts were true.

His Honor said that it was material, but Mr Adams might have to prove that the paragraph related to plaintiff. That would not be difficult.

Mr Fraser: The first portion of the paragraph does, but the second obviously does not. It is a general statement.

James Neil, plaintiff, in the course of his evidence, said that his wife's father was Mr Hardie. Witness was not a party to the proceedings in the Police Court.

To Mr Fraser: Hardie had made over property to witness; but witness took it to save it from being sold by the mortgagor, and it had been a loss. Hardie had changed his religious views. Witness had not on that account refused to give him a home, but his sons were the proper persons to do that. The 'Daily Times' report of the Police Court proceedings was fair as far as it went. The Star's was a very fair report, and, with witness's own letter, it covered all the facts. Witness saw the explanatory letter published by defendants, but considered that it came too late. It made no offer of terms in regard to the expenses witness had incurred.

The other witness called by Mr Adams was Arthur A. Adams.

Mr Fraser asked His Honor to say whether the second part of the paragraph complained of was capable of a libellous construction.

His Honor said that it certainly was capable of that construction, but it was a question for the jury. Mr Fraser said that the defence was, first, that the article complained of was not defamatory; and, secondly, that it was a fair comment. The paragraph was put in in good faith, and if Neil were not so supersensitive he ought, out of his affluence, to have spared 4s a week towards the support of his wife's father.

Mr Adams understood that the facts were not to be gone into. If they were, it should be stated that Neil was paying 3s 3d a week. 

Mr Fraser: So that we were within 4d a week of saving all this trouble.

Continuing, Mr Fraser said that Pilling had no knowledge of or animus against Neil, and he put Neil right so far as a fount of type would permit, by printing in the next issue what was really an ample apology. It was not, however, an apology that Neil wanted, but £ s d.

Thomas Pilling, one of defendants, said that the paragraph complained of appeared on the 17th October, On the 24th a stranger, now known as Mr A. A. Adams, went to the office, and asked witness what he was prepared to do. Witness said he had no wish to libel Neil, and that if he (Adams) would state the facts an explanatory local would appear. Witness said that he would write a letter for Adams to take back with him, but when Adams called for the letter witness said that he had looked into the matter, and would write to Adams Bros. Witness subsequently turned up the facts, and on the Tuesday before publishing day wrote the local he had spoken of. The same day the writ was served, but witness inserted the local all the same. It was as follows: — "Our Dunedin correspondent . . . did Mr Neil — unwittingly, we are sure — an injustice. Facts of an explanatory nature have now come under our notice that entirely alter the complexion of the case as it appeared from the published newspaper reports, and show that our correspondent was imperfectly informed on the case, and therefore not justified in his comments. These facts we readily give publicity to, in justice to Mr Neil, so that any erroneous impressions created by the remarks of our Dunedin correspondent may be effectually removed. The facts of the case substantially are that Mr Hardie (Mr Neil's father-in-law) had been provided with a home at Mr Neil's, which he left of his own accord; and that Mr Neil had subsequently been contributing a weekly amount towards his maintenance. In addition, some other members of his family had offered him a home, which he declined, preferring a weekly allowance in cash. On the face of such evidence, together with the law on the question, the magistrate dismissed the case. This explanation places. Mr Neil's action in an entirely different light, and shows that he acted throughout in a very generous spirit." 

To Mr Adams: When witness saw the first paragraph he thought that it was fair comment — a little caustic, perhaps, but fair enough. He had not closely read the newspaper reports of the case before looking over the paragraph. 

Mr Adams: Who wrote that paragraph? 

Witness: I decline to tell you. I accept responsibility. 

The other witnesses were D. H, Cameron, Henry Griffin, and James Hardie.

After half an hour's retirement the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for L 25. 

Judgment for plaintiff, with costs on the lowest scale.  -Tuapeka Times, 16/12/1891.

DEATH THROUGH AN OVERDOSE OF MORPHIA.

Early yesterday morning a young man named Jonathan Wheeler reported to the police that he had found Alexander L. Gillespie, manager of Dr. Neil's herbalist establishment, Wellesley-street, dead in bed at the Warkworth boarding-house. Sergeant Lyons investigated the matter, and reported it to the Coroner, Dr. Philson.

An inquest was held at the Queen's Head Hotel in the afternoon before the coroner and a jury of six, of whom Mr. George Clive was chosen foreman. Sergeant Lyons represented the police. 

The first witness called was Jonathan Wheeler, herbalist in the employment of deceased. He deposed that be last saw the deceased alive on Sunday, at eleven a.m., when he came to the shop to relieve witness. He remarked nothing peculiar about him at that time. Witness left him in charge of the shop. Yesterday morning witness went to the boarding-house for the purpose of getting the key of the shop. He found him lying in bed. Witness tried to wake him, but without success. Thinking something was wrong, he called Mr. Hemus who occupied the adjoining room. Deceased was not in the habit of drinking, but when he did take anything, he always took too much. Saturday and Monday were occasions when deceased took too much. There was a bottle of mixture on the chair. It had been made at their dispensary, and was good for a cough, consisting of simple syrup, together with bayberry, pinus canadiensis, hemlock, ginger, and chillies, but no morphia, poison, or any other narcotic. A glass was lying on the chair near deceased's bed. The glass was empty when found, beyond a little sediment in the bottom. There were white crystals at the bottom. 

At this stage the Coroner dipped his pen in the glass, and requested the witness to bold out his tongue. The witness objected at first, but was finally persuaded to do so. After the operation he expectorated on the floor several times, and remarked that the taste in his mouth was very bitter and dry. A number of other bottles were produced which had been found in the room that deceased occupied. Among them was an empty chlorodyne bottle. 

Witness said that none of the bottles contained drugs likely to prove poisonous. The deceased was in the habit of taking morphia. A piece of white paper was found in the glass, it had evidently been folded up as if having contained some powder. As far as witness knew deceased had nothing to trouble him. He was not in debt. Witness did not think he was a man likely to poison himself. No doubt being in wine he took an overdose of morphia. Deceased was to have been married that afternoon. 

Joseph Hemus deposed that he was a musician, and resided at the Warkworth Boarding-house, in the room next the deceased. He had known the deceased about 11 months. He last saw the accused alive last night about a quarter to 12 o'clock. Deceased called witness at that time. Upon entering the room he found him undressed and sitting up in bed smoking a cigarette. He asked witness to give him a dose, and pointed to the bottle of cough mixture. Witness asked how much, and deceased replied "half an ounce," at the same time remarking that it was a mixture made up for him at the shop. Witness gave deceased the dose. He had no suspicion that it contained poison. Deceased called the mixture a pick-me-up. Deceased was half-intoxicated at the time. After giving him the dose witness asked him if there was anything else that he could do for him. Deceased replied in the negative. Before leaving the room witness obtained the cigarette from him, and blew out his light, and left the room. He had been drinking to witness' knowledge for a week. He considered the deceased was a likely man to take his own life. Witness had known him to be very despondent at times, especially after he had been drinking. 

In answer to the Coroner, witness said the deceased was nob a professing Christian. He did not know whether he read his Bible. The deceased was a habitual morphia-taker. 

Mr. Wheeler here stated that the deceased was formerly a member of the Christian Brethren.

Dr. F. W. King deposed that he was called in to see the deceased on Monday morning. He appeared to have been dead for several hours. There did not appear to have been any struggle before death. Witness concluded that he had died from some poison such as morphia. There were small crystals in the bottom of the glass which he had found to be morphia. He had made a post-mortem examination of the body, and the cause of death was an over-dose of morphia. 

Sergeant Lyons also gave evidence. 

The jury, after a few minutes deliberation, returned a verdict in accordance with the medical evidence.  -NZ Herald, 3/10/1893.

Northern Cemetery, Dunedin.

In 1900, James Neil was sued for breach of contract by a builder, Joseph Howie.  In fact, it was a number of contracts for a number of jobs. There was an argument over Neil's picking up waste timber to burn - small pieces were all right, but he began to take pieces that were required for the job.  Neil ordered Howie off the property and the job was halted. Howie sued Neil for the agreed price of the contract (L133) but had to  be content with a court victory and a percentage of the contract, based on work done (L17).

Howie v. Neil.

TO THE EDITOR. 

Sir, — I have read Mr Neil's letter appearing in the Times of this (Saturday) morning, and can only say that I am surprised that this man should again appear before the public in connection with this case. The numerous witnesses whom I called, the defendant's own letter, and his utter breakdown in cross-examination, showed to the world that I was right. I consider, Sir, that your report was a mild "let off" for the said James Neil, herbalist, Invercargill, who made a miserable exhibition of himself while being cross-examined by my lawyer, and after that was over no one had any doubt about my case. The looker-on, it is said, sees most of the play, and it was re marked by some who heard and saw Mr Neil in the box, that in his endeavours at explanation he looked like a grub under salt. I shall give him a little further attention as soon as I can find time for it. 

— I am, &c., Joseph C. Howie. 4th August. 

TO THE EDITOR. 

Sir, — I notice a letter in this morning's paper in which J. Neil has accused me of trying in court to damage his character. The mere facts of the case are: Howie was suing Neil for damages for breach of contract, and Howie won. The latter gentleman summonsed me as a witness, and I was asked several questions, which I was bound to answer, one of them being how I had found Neil in business matters. I did not try to damage his character, and simply answered the questions truthfully. My advice to Mr Neil is the same as Mr Macalister's was to him in court, viz., "Now, Mr Neil, consider before you speak, and be very careful what you are saying." 

— I am, etc., G. N. Dawson. 4th Aug.  -Southland Times, 6/8/1900.

Howie v. Neil.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — I do not wish to trouble your readers with what may be called a private quarrel, but lest Mr Howie should think that he had floored me with his numerous witnesses and the puerile cross-examination of his lawyer I wish to give you the testimony of a person who was present, and I ask you to publish the enclosed letter. As a Christian it is my duty to live at peace with all men, so I wait to with Mr Howie, but in order to do so I ask him to give me a written apology for using the terms "stealing and thieving" to me. Unless this is given to me on or before Monday, 13th inst., I shall enter an action against him for slander. I do not wish to expose my friend to Mr Howie's ill-will, so I withhold his name.

— I am, &c, J. Neil. 

The letter to which Mr Neil refers is as follows: — In answer to your enquiries as to my impression of the evidence given by Mr Howie's witnesses and your own cross-examination I must say that as to the witnesses, with the exception of Mr Dawson, about all they had to say was that you had stated that you had let the work to Howie, which in your own evidence you admitted. Dawson's evidence seemed to me to have little to do with the case, but plainly showed that he was decidedly unfriendly to you. The cross-examination was chiefly in reference to a statement made by you that a paper produced had been left at your shop on the previous day by a boy unknown to you, the description of the messenger, and of a customer in the shop at the time, but certainly did not in the smallest degree shake your testimony; in fact was little more than a waste of time. I was present during the whole of the evidence. 6th Aug. [This correspondent is closed, so far as our open columns are concerned. — Ed.]  -Southland Times, 7/8/1900.

Howie v. Neil: The Parting Shot

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — I read in yours of the 7th inst. another of Mr Neil's miserable letters, trying to make it appear to the public that he had been a martyr in this case. I should have thought the exposure of his tactics, in trying to floor me by denying that the written tender he produced in court, was the one I gave him on 13th July, was enough for the people in court to know, without exposing himself to the general public. My advice to Mr James Neil, herbalist, is to act in all his dealings with his fellowmen so that they would see he was a Christian. It would have more weight than publishing it in newspapers. As to his demand for an apology, I may state that previous to his letter appearing he had a letter from my solicitor stating that I was quite prepared for any action he thought fit to take, and declining to offer him any apology, having nothing to apologise for. As to his friend's explanation, I would advise that friend to take an hour or so every evening with some schoolmaster, as it is quite evident he has never passed the first standard. This is the only "ill-will" I bear to his friend. Mr Neil is doing his best to paint me black, but it will all come out in the washing, so good-bye. 

— I am, &c, Joseph C. Howie. [Mr Howie having now replied to Mr Neil's last, this correspondence must end here. — Ed.]  -Southland Times, 9/8/1900.

Police Court

Monday, 13th August. Before Messrs W. B. Scandreth and W. H. Hall, J's.P. 

FUTILE AND EXTENSIVE. 

Joseph C. Howie was charged with, on the 4th inst., shaking a ladder to the annoyance and provocation of James Neil, herbalist, on which ground the latter applied for an order binding the defendant over to keep the peace. — Mr C. S. Longuet, for the complainant, said he was a quiet, inoffensive man, while the defendant was hot-headed and quick-tempered. In consequence of a case the parties had before the court some time ago, the defendant had made use of abusive language to Neil and had also threatened him. Neil wished to put up a signboard above his shop and used a ladder that was lying near. The ladder belonged to Howie, who was erecting some shops for the plaintiff, and he came and objected to Neil using his ladder. The complainant put the ladder quietly back in its place. Neil then got another ladder from one of the painters and put it in position. Howie again came up and used abusive language and told Neil not to put the ladder against his verandah. The ladder was not touching the verandah, but was leaning against the building, and Neil went on with the work. Howie seized the ladder and shook it violently, and Neil grasped the verandah to prevent himself from falling. There was also farther trouble about another matter, and Neil was really afraid that some harm would be done to him by defendant. — Evidence having been given in support of the complainant, Mr J. Macalister, for defendant, said that as a result of recent litigation, Neil said to witnesses who would be called that he meant to make it hot for Howie during the rest of the contract. He had carried out his threat and had never ceased to annoy and irritate the defendant. On the day in question it would be clearly shown that Howie did not intend to harm the complainant by the fact that Neil finished the work of putting up the signboard. — At this stage the Bench said they were satisfied there was no case to answer, and the Information was dismissed, with costs against complainant amounting to £3 8s.  -Southland Times, 14/8/1900.

A religious crank named J. Neil, who holds forth at the Fountain in the Scawtch city of Dunedin, has lately run up against the prejudices of young New Zealand, a portion of whom fired crackers and baby rockets under the feet of the godly but voluble person, and Neil offered 5s for the name of the perpetrator, and a young limb of Satan tried to collect the sum with a fictitious moniker. On the following night the same young person caught the religious maniac by the trousers, and the insulted orator asked the youth his name. "Give me five bob, and I'll tell you," replied the hopeful, and Neil offered to party up the cash at the police station, and the young man proceeded thither to draw his reward, accompanied by a large crowd who blocked the thoroughfare. The Sub-Inspector very sensibly pointed out that the street-preaching was the cause of the disturbance, and an infuriated Bible-puncher is now writing to the Press demanding an Englishman's freedom of speech and the right to make himself a yelling nuisance.  -NZ Truth, 28/12/1907.

THE POLICE ENQUIRY

REVELATIONS MADE AT DUNEDIN.

Are The Otago Officers Under a Cloud?

COMMISSIONER DINNIE GIVES EVIDENCE ON OATH. 

His Version of his Son's Leave of Absence.  (excerpt)

PRETTY PADDY HERBERT ACCEPTS THE MINISTERIAL ASSURANCE. — THE POLICE 

COMMISSIONER AND N.Z. "TRUTH." — THE PAPAKAIO MURDER BLUNDERING. 

James Neil, a botanic chemist, had a grievance, and it was that the police were not over-zealous in protecting the liberties of the people in the way of public speaking, in and out of doors. After giving instances where there was a lack of police control at huge gatherings, Neil observed the police did not like open-air preaching, and for himself he considered it was his duty to preach the truth. At the Fountain young men sometimes threw water at him, and knocked his hat off. The law gave him liberty to speak in the open air, and the police seemed to give liberty to rogues to stop public speaking. He had spoken in cities at Home, but had never been so badly treated as in Dunedin. There was supposed to be 

A LAW AGAINST BOYS SMOKING, but at the Fountain boys sometimes got behind him, and smoked him out. If one or two plain-clothes constables were to take their stand in the crowd and make an example of one or two offenders the whole trouble would stop. 

Mr Bishop: Have you complained to the authorities? 

Witness said he had done so. The subinspector told him he should summon anyone who was annoying him. 

Mr Bishop: Do you suggest that the Inspector of Police should detail constables to protect all the local preachers throughout New Zealand? In Christchurch it would take about half the force to watch the local preachers. 

Witness: The Army is all right, because it has plenty of drums to drown the noise. It is in the case like mine that trouble arises. My political platform has now been taken by the Socialist party, and while it gets a good hearing I get the reverse. 

Mr Bishop said it was not right that people should physically interfere with the witness, and he would ask the inspector to see that such a thing did not happen.   -NZ Truth, 24/7/1909.

NEIL'S NASTINESS.

A PLEASANT SUNDAY AFTERNOON.

Bother About the Bible and Infidels.

A Herbalist Strikes a Heap of Trouble

Some old pagan, probably Wilson Barrett, in one of his weepo-dramas, said: "How these Christians love one another." to which sentiment this religious organ says. "Hear, hear" with much emphasis and a loud voice. "Truth" hereby adds to its exceedingly long list of weeping wowsers the execrable name of James Neil, herbalist, of Dunedin, who has built up for himself at the Dunedin Bible Research Society's meeting on Monday last an imperishable name as a wowser, a bigot, a Shylock, and a narrow-minded, weary, wicked wowser of 22-carat quality and jewelled in 4 holes. Neil is the same old pill-box who attended the Police Commission at Dunedin and complained that the small boys knocked his hat off at the Fountain. 

Neil the Noxious attended a meeting of the Bible Research. Society (whatever that may mean) at the Chess Club Rooms, Liverpool-street, Dunedin, on Sunday afternoon last, and there by his 

BIGOTRY, CANT, HYPOCRISY, AND GENERAL NASTINESS called down upon his head the execrations and curses of his fellow Bible-researchers. Neil the Narrow-minded owns the delectable premises called the Chess Club Rooms, where the meeting was held, and whenever he was jammed in a corner on account of his own intemperate arguments and blasted bigotry, he reckoned he was the chairman and wanted to boss the show. However, the seekers of truth, weren't having any, and told Neil the Narrow-minded their candid did opinion of him, and that opinion ought to make this weeping wowser sit up and take notice.

The cause of Neil's nastiness was that a brother member of the Gospel Prospecting Society, called G. A. Rawson, in the course of his business as a bookseller exposed for sale certain books by Huxley, Haeckel, Spencer, Ingersoll, Blatchford, Darwin, and other authors of free thought tendencies, and as Rawson was leasing his shop, from the Noxious Weed, and the Noxious Weed was going to present Rawson with the ancient and honorable insignia of the kick-out if he didn't cease to expose for sale the horrible literature, Rawson thought the Scripture Exploration Convention a good place to hand the Noxious Neil one in the eye, so to speak. 

The Researchers Were fifty in number, and one McDonnell occupied the chair. Neil was announced to give a lecture on 

"THE GOOD RESULTS OF CHRISTIAN MISSIONS," but before wading into his masterpiece he reckoned he would read the new rules and regulations of the Society as boss of the show. 

The Researchers then collared Neil low, and the chairman allowed that Neil could read the rules. 

Neil started to read the rules and comment on them, but Boreham, the Secretary, said it was his place to do the reading, and did so. The rules as read contained vague references to anything disrespectful being said about anyone's creed or God, and that members be treated with delicacy. 

The ancient vegetarian then poked his proboscis in again and wanted to run the roost. He said he was president; but the Society had taken the reins out of his hands, and generally raised Cain. 

Rawson the freethinker thought it was time to air his little grievance against the man who runs the sarsaparilla foundry. He read the following Christian note: — "Mr Rawson, — I wish to resume possession of my shop on October 1 of this year, and 

UNLESS YOU REMOVE THOSE" INFIDEL BOOKS, I will this week let my shop to another tenant. — (Signed), J. Neil." 

Rawson explained that he had offered to remove the books from his window if Neil would give him a lease, and the squills man wouldn't, but told Rawson's friends he would give Rawson an undertaking not to interfere with him if he did so. Rawson signed an agreement to that effect, but the man of rhubarb imposed extra conditions that the awful books should be removed to the back of the shop to a position where they could not be seen, and only produced when they were asked for. 

When the Religion Sappers asked the worthy vessel for dispensing seidlitz powders for an explanation, James the Gallipot said the Bible was good enough for him any time and he was not going to let his shop 

AS A FREETHOUGHT DISPENSARY. In his noble Kerristian way he hinted that he had saved Rawson from the Bankruptcy Court. 

The Bible Miners then handed Neil the No-class a few marks of their esteem, such as "Liar," and "Coward," and the wowser handed a few back. After quiet had been restored, Rawson, at the request of the Chair, detailed his money transactions with Neil. 

The Researchers then got up one by one and gave the knight of the mortar and pestle their candid and sincere opinion of him, and that is an opinion that Neil will not get illuminated and framed for the enlightenment of his posterity. The members hunted their vocabulary for suitable names for the vegetarian. A few were "Despot," "Shylock," "'Tyrant,'' "Bigot," and one irate Researcher reckoned Neil the Narrow would erect a gibbet in the town if he could. 

These endearing terms evidently got the gallipot's back up, as he again wanted to boss the meeting, as he had paid for the room. He would run the meetings in future on his own, and if they didn't like it they could stop away. In a true spirit of Christian charity he also stated that Rawson was not prompt in paying his rent. 

Rawson told the weed vendor he was a liar.

The Researchers then conducted further researches into the Kerristian pill-box's character, with great enthusiasm. Neil the Liquorice Licentiate endeavored vainly to stem the torrent and got mixed up between Chemistry and Christianity, and told Rawson he would be bumped out next day. 

This was evidently too much for the Researchers as they got up and

PRESENTED THE SENNA-TEA MAN with the genial kick-out from the gospel exploration fraternity with much enthusiasm, and also decided to take steps to call an indignation meeting of the Dunedin public "to prevent the tyranny of one of our fellow citizens." The sedative-slinger then took his hook, and before leaving told the Researchers they would have to look out for a fresh claim next Sunday, to which kind remark the Researchers said they didn't want his room, anyhow, as they had got a better one. Thus wound up what J. J. North would call a "Happy Sunday Afternoon."   -NZ Truth, 28/8/1909.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

OWNER AND TENANT: A NEST OF HORNETS. 

SIR, — As I have always found that you give far play to your correspondents, I trust you will allow me to give this storm in a teacup a clear setting, so that me friends and foes may know the truth of the matter. Your report of the meeting, purposely backed by my opponent, was a very fair one, considering that two hours of it were wasted, and I was prevented from giving the advertised lecture on Christian Missions. To me it was a trying time to sit and listen to such a torrent of abuse and I am sorry that when distinctly false statements were made I denied them. Nearly all that was said against me was by men who believe and teach that devil's doctrine that man is not responsible for his actions, as he could not help doing what he did; but it was evident they do not believe their words, for they held me responsible - hence the vitriol of their outpouring. But let that pass. The whole thing, stripped of personalities, is simply a dispute as to the right of an owner to refuse to allow a tenant to sell what he likes in the owner's shop, As a Christian, I strongly object to my anti-Christian tenant selling what I consider the devil's own books and exposing them for sale in what I am certain is God's own shop, for all that I am and have belongs to my God and Saviour. First, I told the tenant that if he wished to stay in my shop he would have to take these books inside. This he would not do. Now, I have said I will give him six weeks to get another shop, and for this I am to have my character blackened all over the Dominion and the wide world. Regarding the blasphemies in these books of which I complain, they are too horrid to be written, but if any Christian wishes to see them I will give him an opportunity, and I think I will satisfy him that I am justified in my actions, both legally and morally. About the society, which I assisted to found, the free speech that was allowed resulted in the name of God and Jesus being blasphemed, and Christians in disgust rose and left; they would not come, and so the unbelieving scoffer got in the majority, and with a room full, of which at least one-half were not members, they voted me out. But as I am tenant, I intend to keep on the true Bible Research Society, in which, while free speech will be allowed, scoffing and blasphemy will be forbidden.

 I am, etc., J. Neil.

AN EXPLANATION. 

Sir, — In your report of the meeting on Sunday it is stated that I said every Jew was a liar. I did not use these words. I spoke of Haeckel's blasphemous statement about Jesus Christ — a statement which is too vile to be written. Silverstone said, "All Jews say that." In haste I said, "They are all liars" — meaning only those who say the same as Haeckel. I do not say that all Jews are liars, except in the sense in which their own Scriptures say that all men are liars.

— I am, etc., J. Neil.  -Evening Star, 24/8/1909.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

THE BIBLE RESEARCH SOCIETY. 

Sir, — Allow me, as one holding to a certain extent the views professed by Rationalists, to protect against the unrational methods of the Bible Research party. No one guiding himself by reason, as dictated by the studying of the best minds in literature, would for long be content to ally himself with such screamers as evidently compose this society. These men bring contempt on all who truly call themselves rationalists, by their violence, which proves to everyone that they do not regulate themselves by reason. Professing Christians, who likewise behave themselves or misbehave are dubbed with a nasty name. The real leaders in rationalistic thought are men of ability and sincerity, and at the same time are humble, though sometimes dogmatic. The men who compose this society are evidently very dogmatic, evidently not sincere, and certainly not humble. In effect, they appear bigots. As one guiding himself by reason, Mr Rawson should know he had a legal remedy, and that is the remedy at the present juncture. 

In conclusion, let me advise the society (though to give advice is generally a thankless thing) to study Gould's "Moral Lessons for Children," especially the chapter "Prudence." For their information let me add that Gould is a noted nationalist, and Mr Rawson could supply the textbooks.

— I am, etc., Rationalist.

August 23.

Sir, — In the name of justice I make this communication to you. I am of exactly opposite opinion to Mr Neil, holding, as I do, all religious belief to tic baneful and immoral. But I do not like dirty work. I have been to some of the so-called Bible Research Society's meetings, and have been so unfavourably impressed by the cowardly treatment of Mr Neil there that I dropped out. The same extreme horde boasted to me that they had joined a Parliamentary Union, which was started by a capitalistic element, and that their arguments had been so strong that all the original members had withdrawn. Knowing their propensities, I asked them if it was not rather that their uncouth blustering had disgusted the capitalistic members; and their behaviour in Mr Neil's meeting has persuaded me that it was so.

At the Sunday afternoon meetings Mr Neil, who stood almost alone, was subjected to constant interruption whenever he spoke, and on the most trivial occasions ruled out of order by a biased chairman, who also granted undue liberties to his own clique, and never lost an opportunity of, by gesture or interruption, raising a titter against Mr Neil; in fact, this mob simply congregated for the express purpose of bullying this forbearing old gentleman, and, not finding sufficient brains amongst the whole of them to meet his arguments honestly, their vindictive scheming culminated in the events of last Sunday afternoon. 

As regards Mr Neil's action, it is only religious men of deep experience who can understand his point of view. He is prompted by anxiety for the souls of men. Supposing that you, Sir, let a property to some persons who put it to infamous uses, would you not eject them with the utmost despatch? How much more, then, if it was used to advertise a means of sending souls down to perdition — everlasting punishment? I laugh at this belief myself; but as Mr Neil is troubled by these fears, he is quite right to withhold the use of his shop; and if he had not done so, those who are insulting him now would be the first to exclaim that, for the sake of the rent, he was inconsistent with his professions.

I trust, Sir, that, as you have allowed the report of Sunday's meeting to go into print, you will also allow every word of this, my evidence, to go before the public, especially since I am a keen sceptic, and wholly disinterested so far as Mr Neil is concerned. 

— I am, etc., W. W. Raff. 

North-East Valley, August 23,

Sir, — The majority of your readers, like myself, must feel greatly humiliated at the course of action Mr Neil is determined to take. Mr Neil backs his action on moral grounds, and proceeds to execute it by most un-moral means. At Sunday's meeting, at which I was present, Mr Neil opened his defence in the following terms: — "My conscience prompts me to take this action in defence of my Saviour, Jesus Christ," And after quoting from the Bible the passage, "Be not a partner of another man's sin," he unconsciously condemned the whole of his moral endeavours by ibis assertion, "This is my private property" — meaning the shop rented to Mr Rawson, — "and as long as this capitalistic system lasts, nobody has a right to dictate to me what I shall do with it."

Now, here is the key to the whole position: Mr Neil endeavours to defend Christ with a weapon that Christ himself denounced as immoral — namely, usury. This is the Biblical aspect of Mr Neil's position, on which he is at once found guilty. Looking at this matter from a modern point of view, we find that Mr Neil's action is morally wrong, but legally right, as claimed by Mr Neil, under this present capitalist system. This is what we Socialists are telling humanity every day: that a polity based on an economic system of usury — viz. rent, interest, and profit — must be immoral; and Mr Neil's economic power of action is one practical illustration among the millions which throughout our daily life produce the different social evils, which the masses, who are the chief sufferers from it, least care to recognise and remedy, and which those teachers and leaders whom the apathetic masses trust and follow — viz., the clergy and the politicians — least care to try to remedy. Speaking of clergymen, Mr Neil at Sunday's meeting distinctly said this: that he, like Mr Rawson, had been telling different people of the course of action he had taken, and amongst them were clergymen, who told him that he had done the right thing. Mr Neil was instantly asked by different interjectors to give the names of some of those clergymen, and he replied: "The Rev. Curzon-Siggers is one who told me I was doing the correct thing." To this the retort came from the interjectors, "We don't believe it," and Mr Neil said, "Then you call me a liar." The reason that the interjectors doubted the veracity of Mr Neil's statement was that they knew Mr Curzon-Siggers personally, and were aware that he was one of the prime movers in the Prisons Reform League, which believes in treating criminals as invalids, and that it was through his efforts that the Socialistic addresses delivered by Bishop Gore and others at the Pan-Anglican Conference in London were published in our local press last year. It was on the strength of that knowledge that the doubt was created. 

But surely Mr Neil — judging by the earnestness of his defence in justification of the above statement — could not have wantonly made a false statement. In that case, then, my statement bears out the truth of my argument in another practical instance — viz., that the clergy, who are supposed to be moral teachers of the masses, least care to abolish this present unmoral economic system of life. Then is it any wonder that the churches are not filled? 

In conclusion, we Socialists say that as long as this system continues, of private property in the means of production, which is by Nature ordained to be social property to help humanity to produce things for human use and not private profit, so long will it be possible for action such as Mr Neil's to continue, for although morally wrong it is legally right.
— I am, etc., Scientific Socialist. 

Dunedin, August 24.

Sir, — One might be inclined to think on reading your report of the meeting of the Bible Research Society, held on Sunday last, that it resolved itself into a perfect Bedlam, and that its members, variously designating themselves as Infidels, Agnostics, Atheists, Fret-thinkers, and Socialists, are persons outside the pale of decent society. If they are, then it is clearly the duty of enlightened Christians to lead them to the Light. I use the word "Christian" advisedly, as there was only one Christian, and that was the Founder of Christianity: the rest are seeking for the Truth more or less, and the honest doubter may stand nearer the Kingdom than the self-sufficient Christian. A study of the life of the Poor Carpenter will show that it was the outcasts from society that he associated with, but we would do well to look upon Him as a Man among men, whose character was indefilable. and whoso influence for good was stronger than all evil around Him. His mission was not one of condemnation, but to assist humanity to a higher ideal of life, and these various names by which men call themselves are but distinctions or divisions that He said would come on earth. The use of language is surely to express our feelings toward each other, and Christian feeling can be expressed in the one word — Love — which in turn finds expression in many ways. Now, Sir, the Scientific Bible Research Society is composed of Truthseekers of many forms, and therein lies its interest to the student of character, for charity, which is the bond of perfectness, covereth a multitude of sins.

Nor was Sunday's meeting in the true sense disorder. Certainly there was some straight talk, and some feeling worked up, but, I should say, not much unfriendliness. The evil of modern times is that men are afraid to speak their minds, and we have drifted into a shiftless, backboneless, generation; but, if truth is spoken in love, only good can result. Trusting that the Dunedin public will take a broad view of this matter.

— I am, etc. W. Barr.

Sir, — It was with a strong feeling of shame and disgust that I read in your issue of the 23rd inst. an account of the proceedings at the meeting of the Biblical Research Society, held on the previous afternoon. He who claimed the Bible for his only creed is the president of this self styled society. His own researches into the Bible appear to have been very perfunctory. The highest lesson therein is: "Love is the fulfilling of the law." Jesus Christ came to reveal our Maker. Just hear His familiar words, that the veriest child can understand: "I say unto you resist not evil. Bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you, that you may be like unto your Father in Heaven Who causes His sun to shine on the evil and the good, and sendeth His rain on the just and the unjust." This inspired Apostles likewise: "Return not railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing." Surely it is a reasonable thing to expect that anyone with the least right to the name of Christian should be consistent. A true Christian will of necessity be the most patient, courteous, and polite of all men, Voicing, as I am sure I do, many thousands of the followers of Jesus Christ, I record my protest. Eternal verities need not such advocates as this man. The curse of landlordism is apparent in this case, and, under the guise of belief in the Bible, the plain vices of commercialism are conspicuous.

— I am, etc., A CHRISTIAN.

Nae poison'd sour Armian stank 

He let them taste,
Frae Calvin's well, aye clear they drank — 

Oh sic a feast! 

—The Holy tubsie. 

Sir, It must have been a disappointment for Mr Neil to find the meeting-place of his Bible Research Society filled, not with honest seekers after truth, but a kind of ''mixter-maxter squad," such as were gathered in the cave of Adullam. It would be of some interest to know if that passage of the Bible was ever "before" the society in which we read that, when David escaped to the cave of Adullam, ''everyone that was in distress, and everyone that was in debt, and everyone that was discontented gathered themselves unto him."

— I am, etc., Ichabod. 

August 24.  -Otago Daily Times, 26/8/1909.

THE DUNEDIN SCIENTIFIC BIBLE RESEARCH SOCIETY

Sir, — It is amazing to think what neighbours one may have. One is sometimes persuaded, against his better judgment, to attend a picnic. On a public holiday in the early summer when the day is doubtful and the wind is keen, one wends his way to some damp hollow, there a tablecloth is spread on the ground and loaded with indigestible food. Then one sits in a cramped position and spills tea and cream on one's clothes, gets one's coat etc. invaded, by insects and torn by brambles, sows in one's system the seeds of rheumatism, and tries to believe it is all very delightful. Presently, a friendly stone that has served as a seat, cold, but preferable always to damp grass, happens to get turned over, and immediately there come into fleeting sight all kinds of insect horrors that shun the light. The lady who has just risen from their neigbourhood gathers her skirts around her with a shudder. I was reminded of such a scene when I read this morning your report of the meeting of "The Dunedin Scientific Bible Research Society." It seems that the membership includes Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Socialists; in fact, representatives of all creeds and beliefs other than what is known as the Christian religion. Ugh! To think that we were so close to these things and did not know it! 

— I am, etc., Herbert Webb. Dunedin, August 23.

Sir, — May I make a suggestion to Mr Neil regarding the meeting last Sunday? One can quite understand how he feels, and one can understand how Mr Rawson feels. One has his living secure already; the other is trying to secure his by what he thinks the best means — namely, by selling books to please all people. Now, I suggest to Mr Neil that, as he does not want the man's rent, he might devote it to the babies' home every week through your paper, and he will remember that it is said, "For as much as you do for these little ones so will your Heavenly Father do unto you." The joy which would be caused would leave Mr Neil no room for bitterness, and there would be no fear of displeasing God. For He will repay him back with interest, and no outside words can hurt him. 

— I am, etc., A Mother. Anderson's Bay, August 26.

Sir, — In answer to Mr Raff's statement about the chairman of the Bible Research Society, and his impressions of the meetings of that society, I would like to remind him that he is just about as troublesome a visitor as any that ever attended; but as he was not there last Sunday, he must have written his letter from hearsay. Had he been present no doubt he would have entertained the audience by his wild and reckless fancies, as he usually does, and this would not have improved the meeting. He also mentioned that his opinions are exactly opposite to Mr Neil's as he holds that all religions are baneful and immoral. If such are his ideals, his letter can be considered in the light of the duality of his judgment as thus shown.

— I am, &c, Student.

Dunedin, August 26. 

Sir, — Your correspondent Mr Raff, like Mark Twain's famous watch, has "got into a raging fever." His knowledge and civility can be gauged by his opening statement that "all religious beliefs are baneful and immoral." Mr Raff should be the last man to write in the way he has done. His conduct at the Hon. Mr Millar's meetings prior to the last election is still fresh in the memory of your readers. It would also be interesting to some of your readers to know why Mr Raff left the Socialist party. Mr Raff talks about "the extreme horde" (a beautiful expression from such a highly-cultured gentleman as Mr Raff), who boasted to him of having captured the Parliamentary Union. I may mention for Mr Raft's information that not one of those gentlemen took part in the debate. Mr Raff talks about the vindictive scheming to bring about last Sunday's debate. This statement is only a figment of his imagination. 

I now come to the most hypocritical part of Mr Raff's letter, and will leave it to your readers to judge what his opinions are worth. Mr Raff says that Mr Neil is actuated by his religious belief in the course of action he has taken, and that he "is quite right to withhold the use of his shop." Now, I want Mr Raff to see where his logic leads him. "All religious beliefs," according to his opening statement, "are baneful and immoral." Therefore, all actions actuated by any religious belief must be baneful and immoral. Mr Raff tells us that Mr Neil is actuated by his "religious belief"; therefore, Mr Neil's action must be baneful and immoral. How, then, can Mr Raff assort that. Mr Neil "is quite right"? Everyone will admit that Mr Neil has a legal right, but he has no moral right in the stand he has taken.

— I am, etc., M.

Sir, — The report in last Monday's Daily Times concerning the owner and tenant episode discloses a very singular state of things for the time we live in. One feels sorry for Mr Rawson, while it is certain that decent-minded people will look upon Mr J. Neil's action as being of an exceptionally reprehensible kind. Mr Rawson, however, is not over-fortunate in some of his friends, whose methods of helping him are, to put it mildly, somewhat injudicious. To bait a fanatic may be great sport in a way, but it is not likely to make him less of a fanatic than he was. We must remember this much, however: that Mr Neil's action is so obviously unique that its import is of merely passing consequence and never likely to be imitated. That it itself shows the unhappy offender as standing condemned by his fellows, whatever their religious predilections may be. It must be admitted that this statement of the case does not help Mr Rawson, but where the prime mover has legality on his side he may do as he likes with his victim. 

We are, at anyrate, confronted with a position that is, happily, new in the history of this city. If Mr Neil be right, then all of those who are in any way connected with the "iniquity" he so crudely condemns must be in the wrong. But what are the facts? The works of Darwin, Huxley, Spencer, Haeckel, Ingersoll, Grant, Allen, Tyndall, Paine, Renan, Andrew Lang, and a host of others, as issued by the Rationalist Press Association, are on sale as everyday wares in practically every bookshop in the English-speaking world. And there is no reason why it should be otherwise. In essence it simply means that a well-conducted organisation has succeeded in doing what individual enterprise might never have achieved. The Rationalist Press Association has every reason to be proud of the success with which, during the last nine or 10 years, it has placed within the reach of all inquirers many works which are inseparable from the glory of the great nineteenth century — works which will form the garland of that century in the days that are to come. I venture to assert that there is absolutely nothing, in any of the association's publications that need excite anything the expression of ordinary dissent or criticism in any well-balanced mind.

Mr Neil says he has read the "infidel books," but there is grave reason for doubting it. If he has read Paine, why does he reiterate the old falsehood that the "rebellious staymaker," as Carlyle called him, was an atheist? Fame's writings I do not pretend to be familiar with, but everyone knows at least that he was a Deist(?) and really, had he lived in our days, would have been considered justly to be a very religious man. Allowing, that Mr Neil has contrived to read some of the books that are so very inimical to his peace of mind, it does not follow that his verdict is due to badness in the books. It may to quite as likely due to a personal defect of his own. Even Mr Neil would hardly claim to have many disciples, and his isolation in this respect shows that his crudely out-of-date views may safely be looked upon as a survival from the past.

In our day there is nothing more talked about than religion — and nothing less lived and felt. On occasion even the great heretics are frequently brought in as shining examples of what they were not. I was quite struck by a local in the Daily Times of the 17th inst, in which mention was made of a lecture on the late Mr George Meredith, by Miss Jones, a university graduate with the Master of Arts degree to her name. This lady told the young men of the Hanover Street Baptist Church that George Meredith was a "deeply religious man,'' a statement I do not challenge in the least. Only, let it be added, the great novelist was certainly a rationalist of the most thoroughgoing kind, and, incidentally, a valued supporter of the Rationalist Press Association from its inception. But, in truth, it is just among the real rationalists that we have to look nowadays for our "deeply religious" men, between whom and minds of the type represented by Mr Neil a wide and over-widening gulf stretches away towards infinity. The pity is that some of Mr Rawson's friendly gladiators are very distinctly of his enemy's type themselves, and their championship is far more likely to alienate sympathy than to increase it in the minds of self-respecting people.

— I am, etc, A.M.  -Otago Daily Times, 28/8/1909.

BACK TO THE FOUNTAIN.

A PLEASANT SUNDAY AFTERNOON. 

Dunedin’s new-born fervor for Biblical research resulted in the Otago Chess Club’s rooms being invaded yesterday afternoon by a heterogeneous crowd thirsting for instruction or sensation, or both. At the hour when a quiet little devotional meeting should have been sitting with bowed heads while the president opened proceedings with prayer, the Chess Club premises, upstairs, downstairs, and staircase as well, swarmed with a struggling mass of humanity, packed like sardines in a tin, but by no means as motionless. Presently their numbers were added to by a sergeant of police and a constable. To the emblem of Law, presumably distasteful to the anarchist leavening avowedly present, was added the emblem of Landlordism, theoretically distasteful in the same degree to the Socialistic element. Landlordism was represented in this case by a member of the Committee of the Chess Club, in the person of the Rev. A. I. Chodowski. His mission was one of peace, and incidentally the protection of his club's premises and furniture. “Make room for the rabbi,” shouted Mr Steve Boreham, and at the bidding of their Napoleon, the proletariat did so. Mr Chodowski advanced, and beheld his tenant, Mr James Neil, sitting at a fable, with open book before him, pale, indeed, but otherwise betraying no emotion at the sudden popularity of Bible research under his direction, or at the ravening multitude by whom if was exemplified. 

‘‘Will you take the chair?” quavered Mr Neil to Mr Chodowski. The rival factious also proffered the rabbi the honor, as he would “have some influence over the crowd.” 

“Well, I don’t know,” replied Mr Chodowski, with fine impartiality “I will see about that. I didn’t come here for the purpose of theological study." 

The rabbi then persuaded Mr Neil, Mr Boreham, and one or two others to confer with him apart in another room. When he got them there he asked them in what position exactly he would be. Was he to take the chair at a meeting for the purpose of Biblical research, or was he to preside over a meeting of infidels, Socialists, etc.? 

Mr Boreham replied that the Bible Research Society still existed. 

Mr Neil: Yes — the true Biblical Society. 

Mr Boreham: Yes, and I’m still its secretary. 

Mr Chodowski gave some commonsense advice. It was no use quarrelling, he said. The rooms were let to Mr Neil, and perhaps Mr Boreham had better ask followers to leave, and if Mr Neil constituted the society let him continue his research under his own chairmanship. 

Mr Boreham listened to the advice. He returned to the throng, and told them that as Mr Neil was in possession they had better leave him and adjourn to the Fountain, where he (Mr Boreham) would address them. 

The crowd obeyed, and left Mr Neil to study the Scriptures with half a dozen other students, while they themselves cheered Mr Boreham's unrestrained expression of opinion on Mr Neil’s character and attributes. 

Mr Chodowski undoubtedly solved a difficult problem, and effected a neat mate in two moves.  -Evening Star, 30/8/1909.

Bible research, in itself a good thing, is responsible for some queer products, from Quakerism down to the Higher Critics. Queerest of the queer is the Dunedin Bible Research Society, which has just been holding a Pleasant Sunday Afternoon. Monday morning's report reads like Satan's Invisible World Displayed, — just that. In the words of the reporter, the Dunedin Bible Research Society "comprises self-confessed infidels, Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers. Socialists — in fact, representatives of all creeds and beliefs other than what is known as the Christian religion." The effect produced by turning upon them the light of day reminds me of a passage in Oliver Wendell Holmes; let me turn it up. 

Did you never, in walking in the fields, come across a large flat stone, which had lain, nobody knows how long, just where you found it, with the grass forming a little hedge, as it were, all round it; and have you not, in obedience to a kind of feeling that told you it had been lying there long enough, insinuated your stick or your foot or your fingers under its edge and turned it over as a housewife turns a cake? What an odd revelation, and what an unpleasant surprise to a small community, the very existence of which you — had not suspected, until the sudden dismay and scattering among its members produced by your turning the old stone over! No sooner is the light of day let upon this compressed and blinded community of creeping things, than all of them that possess the luxury of legs — and some of them have a good many — rush round wildly, butting each other and everything in their way, and end in a general stampede for underground retreats from the region poisoned by sunshine. 

This passage may not apply in every particular; I don't pretend that it does. But in general effect it is an inspired commentary on the report, in Monday's Daily Times, of the Bible Research Society's Pleasant Sunday Afternoon. And here should come in the evangelical herbalist, a tragic figure — Neil the name of him; a benefactor to his species who ministers not only to their bodies by dispensing herbal medicines, but also to their souls by Sunday evening discourse from the Cargill monument (otherwise "the Fountain"), amidst the contradictions of sinners, and at the cost of an occasional pelting. The oddest fact about the agnostic and atheistic Bible Researchers is that they had Mr Neil as their president. Que diable allait-il faire dans cette galere? Only the diable knows. Other points for solution might be referred to the same authority. Thus the herbalist, it seems, possesses two shops — the one devoted to dandelion pills and the like, the other rented by a Bible Researcher of agnostic principles who, sells "infidel books" under his landlord's evangelical nose. "And I am certain it is God's own shop!" — writes the good man to the Daily Times, in an agony. It belongs to Neil, ergo to the Deity. Here is a situation! It is all very well now to turn out the sacrilegious bookseller vi et armis; why was he allowed to get in? The Bible Researchers in wrath and indignation have disposed their president; but as he appears to be the landlord not only of their infidel book depot, but also of the rooms in which their Bible researches are carried on, and seems determined to use all the tyranny with which our capitalistic system endows him, the case looks bad. Deprived of their customary roosting-place, the Bible Researchers may have to camp out next Sunday, making what appeal is passible to their presiding genius: — 

Fair Moon, to thee we sing, Bright regent of the heavens; 

Tell us why is everything, Either at sixes or at sevens.   -Otago Witness, 1/9/1909.

If you don't want Trouble 

With your Children's Heads you had better make up your mind to at once procure a bottle of 

Neil's 

Nursery Lotion.

 Children's Heads may be freed from all troublesome pests by using this Lotion which also eradicates Scurf, cleanses the Head, and promotes the Growth of the Hair. 

THE PRICE IS WITHIN THE REACH OF ALL.

THE ADVANTAGE of having a cleanly, reliable preparation of non-Poisonous character must influence you in favour of Nursery Lotion. 

1/- per Bottle 

AT 

NEIL'S DISPENSARY.

74 George Street, and Princes Street.   

-Otago Daily Times, 18/5/1910

OBITUARY

Mr James Neil died at his residence, George street, on Tuesday, 5th inst. He had been ailing some time, but his end, though sudden, was not unexpected. Mr Neil was born at Paisley in 1844, where he spent his boyhood. He arrived in Melbourne in 1860, but left there shortly afterwards to take part in the Gabriel's Gully Rush. He was also on the Dunstan, Shotover, and West Coast goldfields. For some time he resided in Hokitika, where he was married in 1868 to Miss Anne Hardie, of Dunedin. After a visit to England, he settled in Dunedin, where he studied medicine at the newly-opened Otago Medical School, and also later at Chicago, and New York. He started business in Dunedin, and later extended to other centres of the colony. Mr Neil retired from active business some years ago on account of failing health. Mrs Neil predeceased him by five years. He leaves a family of three sons — Dr J. H. Neil, of Auckland, Dr W. F. Neil, of Nottingham, England, and Mr J. G, Neil, of Dunedin — and six daughters.  -Otago Daily Times, 18/5/1914.

Dunedin Letter

(Own Correspondent.)

One can always pick up a note or enough subject matter for one out of an obituary notice. Glancing down the "personals" the other day I caught site of a familiar name and (please forgive me) I smiled. Not that there was any occasion why I should sigh. I had never done the deceased any wrong and I never gave him the opportunity to hurt me as you shall hear. As a matter of a fact I look upon the personal column as a sort of grave yard wherein are buried the names of those whom once I loved, or admired. And, as I read them I murmur to myself: " Well, well! is he really gone?" and "dear me! there's poor old so and so," and, "great heavens, was he as old as that?" &c, &c. Then, too, I sometimes growl and savagely ask myself "Why isn't he here? he ought to be, he's no good to himself nor to his family, nor to the world." Alas! these are the names we never see. That sort of person generally contrives to live on. 

The name that caught my eye and stirred my memory was "James Neil." "Good old Jimmy Neil," I cried to myself, "art gone at last?" Jimmy was a crank. Armed with his Bible he would sally forth of a Sunday evening, mount the steps of the fountain in Custom House Square and hold forth. His weakness, or strength, was "conditional immortality," and for this he was prepared to challenge the universe and occasionally did so through the correspondence columns of the Evening Illuminator. In the winter he hired a room, and invited all and sundry to roll up and discuss these weighty matters with him. There was one man who always acceded. Need I name him? Who does not immediately recall Steve Boreham? Steve, the dashing and daring. Always ready to mount the breach, always ready to break a head (figuratively), always ready to skate on the tail of anyone's coat. And Steve and Jimmy pelted each other with query and taunt to further orders. One Sunday, believe, the rowdy element rushed the room and gave Jimmy a "rough house." 

I have seen him on the steps at rare intervals, for I rarely go down town on Sunday, and I have felt both sorry and angry. 1 was sorry to see Jimmy making himself a butt for larrikins and hooligans and I was angry with the jeering men who goaded him on. Then, haggard, worn, earnest, palpably incompetent to handle the questions he so boldly discussed with the mob, I wondered why such a man should leave his, doubtless' comfortable house in order to carry on windy controversies at the street corner. His calligraphy, his spelling, and his grammar were unique. I have known the machine men decline to set it. Yet Jimmy entered into controversy with positive delight and must have spent money as well as time in making known his fad. Of course he was never happy in any particular church, he invariably drifted away on his own and took a room, or street corner, where and when he was pope, priest, parson, pew-opener and people all in one. 

At one time he talked other things such as polities. And these, and his way of putting them forth, were as extraordinary as himself. He was a great believer in the efficiency of the challenge. He flung down the gauge of battle to all and sundry. Sometimes it was picked up. On one occasion by an editor, Fact! And the two went at it hammer and tongs in a public hall at Caversham. The subject of the debate was Protection of Free Trade. Jimmy took the first, the editor took the second and if noise, boohing, yahing, cat-calling, and other masculine amusements were any criteria Jimmy won hands down. But I am afraid the great British public — where are they all to-day? — were only too delighted to have a chance of chaffing a real live editor. Now the laborer's task is over. The fret and the fume and the wrangle, what are they worth to-day? With Jimmy, life's fitful fever is done and he sleeps well. To me such comings and goings are as admonitions and warnings. Of what use is it to storm and rave and stamp and shout? The end must come and we must pass and what value are all our worries, then?

Here lies Jimmy Neil,— 

He has passed behind the veil.

He spoke of things beyond our ken, 

He braved the jeers of other men, 

He had his faith, not yours, or mine, 

He for it gave his peace, his time, 

And now he's passed across the line 

So, just one sigh for auld lang syne.

His whereabouts we can't divine, 

Nor can we, even now, adore him 

For though he's gone he left Steve Boreham.  -Dunstan Times, 23/5/1914.

Northern Cemetery, Dunedin.